Oral Evidence Enough to Prove Ownership in Lal Dora Areas: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Plaintiff’s Decree Over Disputed Village Passage

Case Name: Balbir Singh v. Dharampal and Another

Date of Judgment: 11 May 2026

Citation: RSA-1597-2011

Bench: Justice Nidhi Gupta

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in disputes relating to properties situated within Lal Dora/Lal Lakir areas, ownership and possession can validly be established through oral evidence and long-standing possession where formal title documents are ordinarily unavailable. The Court further held that a defendant alleging existence of a public street bears the burden of proving the same through cogent evidence. Finding that the defendants failed to establish that the disputed portion was a village common street, the High Court restored the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Summary: The litigation arose from a dispute regarding a portion of land situated within the Lal Lakir area of village Madan Heri. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession over a residential house and adjoining disputed property marked ADJK in the site plan. According to the plaintiff, the property had been inherited from his ancestors, while an adjoining portion measuring 65 square yards had been given to him by one Patram, who died issueless. The plaintiff sought to install a gate at point AK for access to his residential house but alleged obstruction by the defendants.

The defendants contested the suit by asserting that the disputed portion was not private property but a village common street measuring 9 feet in width and vested in the Gram Panchayat as shamlat deh land. They alleged that the plaintiff was attempting to encroach upon a public passage by treating it as part of his residential house.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and held that the disputed property formed part of the plaintiff’s residential house and was not a public street. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree primarily on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to produce documentary evidence establishing ownership over the disputed property.

Allowing the Regular Second Appeal, it was held that the First Appellate Court had misread and ignored material evidence available on record. The High Court observed that the defendants themselves had admitted the plaintiff’s ownership over the remaining residential property and had disputed only the specific portion ADJK. Significantly, despite claiming that the disputed property was a public street, the defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence, village site plan, Local Commissioner’s report, or proof showing existence of windows or ventilators opening towards the alleged street. Even the defendants’ own site plan did not support their stand.

The Court further relied upon an earlier civil suit titled Jaipal v. Balbir, wherein findings had already been recorded that no public street existed over the disputed property. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court had rejected those findings without assigning cogent reasons.

A significant aspect emphasized by the High Court was the nature of Lal Dora/Lal Lakir properties. The Court observed that village habitation areas generally do not possess formal title deeds and therefore ownership is commonly proved through oral testimony and evidence of long possession. Since the suit property admittedly fell within Lal Lakir, the plaintiff could not reasonably be expected to produce formal documentary title. The oral testimonies of PW-2 Malhu Ram and PW-3 Jagdish sufficiently established the plaintiff’s possession and entitlement over the disputed portion.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar and restored the decree granted by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff declaring his ownership and possession over the disputed property and restraining interference by the defendants.